How do i stop open borders after the 30 turn agreement expires?

[langdondr]

Anyone run into this? I had an open border agreement as part of a deal. Then after the rest of the deal expired, the AI denounced me and sent a bunch of units into the middle of my lands without declaring war. I could call the president up and offer a new deal or make a demand but i could find no way to rescind the open border agreement even after it had run its course. If that is a permanent deal, why would anyone ever agree to it in this game?

[Cryten]

Well if its any help when you declare war (you or the ai) all units in the territory being declared on that are unfriendly will be moved to the borders. On a side note before you discover the open border treaty (or the civics era at the same point as open borders) everyone has open borders.

[langdondr]

So all open border agreements are perpetual and the only way to cancel one is to declare war or wait for them to declare war on you (after they have optimally positioned all their units inside our borders)?

[ambershee]

It's a bug. It's like the bug where you declare war on someone who is friendly, then despite being at war cannot enter their borders. Diplomacy in Civ 6 is pretty fecked at the moment.

[Traveler]

I seemed to have open borders with everyone, right from ancient era start.

[blkbutterfly]

You can denounce the civ to cancel open borders

[Juliustice]

Denouncing them back should work. It annoys me when the ai parks units on tiles I need to improve too

[bmrigs]

I never allow open borders. Don't want pain in the ass missionaries coming over and causing havoc.

[Numbers]

Originally posted by Traveler:

I seemed to have open borders with everyone, right from ancient era start.

That's a mechanic. Your borders will close once you get the early empire civic.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Numbers:

Originally posted by Traveler:

I seemed to have open borders with everyone, right from ancient era start.

That's a mechanic. Your borders will close once you get the early empire civic.

Uhhh, really thought it was a bug. So happy I've gone back to CivV.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

Originally posted by bmrigs:

I never allow open borders. Don't want pain in the ass missionaries coming over and causing havoc.

Missionaries dont need an open border agreement to come into your borders... Otherwise religious victory would be pointless and impossible.

[Praetorian_INTP]

Originally posted by The Spanish Inquisition:

Originally posted by bmrigs:

I never allow open borders. Don't want pain in the ass missionaries coming over and causing havoc.

Missionaries dont need an open border agreement to come into your borders... Otherwise religious victory would be pointless and impossible.

That's a stupid rationale.
If anything, there should atleast be an excuse/rationale for war, if someone crosses your borders uninvited (+increased attrition to the unit in question, if I detest their doings), let alone starts preaching to your people, trying to convert them to their cause (as this is, de facto, an act of war; And why do their "missions" take no time, ffs.? Their actions shouldn't be a "one round per progress" sort of deal; they should have to set up camp, rather than being a "click"-option, which is stupid. Giving me some time to react, to actually be an enticing game-mechanic. Unless we are talking about muslim terrorists with a bomb-vests strapped to their chest. Those guys do have an immediate, irreversible impact, o/c...); and atop that, I should be able to have a secondary contract option, for "borders open for non combatant units" (aka: traders and missionaries), so I can decide for myself (i), if I want the risk of letting in some sort of civic-virus (that spreads throughout your domain and starts working for the enemy who infected you; which is pretty much the definition of "religion" in this game) in, for a cost-vs.-benefit trade-off (benefit of trade vs. risk of infection)
As it stands, religious victories is the most stupid game-mechanic in the entire game (and that's saying something, considering how many bad design choices they made)
As it stands it's not even realistic at all.
For a game that pretends to care about history, it's developers have an breath-taking lack of historic knowledge or care for accuracy. You know what would REALLY happen, when someone, esp. in archaic times, overstepped someone elses borders, to tell the people that their ways were wrong, and that they should obey his word because he was the voice of god? - he'd be killed; burned alive, thrown to the lions, or, in some tribal nations, probably eaten by the people themselves; or how did those christians fare in rom exactly? - or in modern china for that matter? - or on "north sentinel island" ... this modern idea of friendly conversion is just an idée fixe ,that doesn't stack up to historic reality. And it's just bonkers that I cannot battle that unless I invest heavily into faith-based-units myself. It does not take a priest to grab a another priest, and nail him to a stake. Any stupid guard/policeman/watchman will do.
I always turn "religious victory" to off, because otherwise it just sucks out all the fun out of the game. Variety of victory conditions is fair and good, but it's not balanced or well thought-out at all. it's a pain in the ass and the game-experience would be enriched, if the mechanic was being ripped out entirely, even w/o any replacement for it. When playing this game as it is, I don't feel like a ruler being given the privilege to form his nation to his will... I rather feel like a powerless magistrate of a weak-ass state, being rittled with infections and plagued by corrupt state-officers (and infiltrated by all-powerful spies, that can carry away state-worth quantities of gold at will, all by themselves (like literal "truckloads" of gold, with their bare hands; the quantities that can hurt); Harry Houdini would be jealous of that magic trick!). There should be no be-all-end-all means of dominating [unless you make sophisticated use of that one means of power]; but as it stands it is no batter, or even worse. It's like an after-thought of balancing, shoe-horned in at the last moment, w/o any consideration for interaction with other mechanics... or plain old fun for that matter.
There should always be a non-religious option to battle religion, as there can always be a non-trade option to battle trade (just kill the enemy's trade units and get rich by doing that) for instance. There can be a trade-off, too, like being frowned upon by others for being "brutal" in that regard. But then again: what does that brain-dead AI not automatically frown-upon, even when doing it themselves to you all the time... even in this case, the AI often laments, when you convert their cities (depending on AI leader), while you as a player can do jack-s*** about it. That's just poor, utterly poor game design.
+ there should always be an option to just end an agreement, w/o deglaring war or denouncing; it should cost you something, but it should not be some indestructible permanent facility, like it was set up by some "higher power".
... but I should stop ranting before I lose it alltogether...

- - - -

i) btw.: why can't I limit "open borders" to single cities where it does make sense, to prevent the moronic AI from swarming the back-most part of my empire? - geez, this game is stupid at times... or how about only giving them the ability to cross my territory, not make camp there, as they always do? ffs.! This AI (does the "I" stand for "idiocy"??) is a pure sore, and an insult to any honest, non-braindead customer of their games.

[Oaks]

What the? Picking a fight with an over two year old thread?

[Despiser]

Open borders is like an invasion, and you know they’re not sending their best units.